1. I supposed that, after so many proofs of my
innocence had been given, my enemies would have shrunk from further
enquiry, and would now have condemned themselves for their false
accusations of others. But as they are not yet abashed, though they
have been so clearly convicted, but, as insensible to shame, persist in
their slanderous reports against me, professing to think that the whole
matter ought to be tried over again (not that they may have judgment
passed on them, for that they avoid, but in order to harass me, and to
disturb the minds of the simple); I therefore thought it necessary to
make my defence unto you, that you may listen to their murmurings no
longer, but may denounce their wickedness and base calumnies. And it is
only to you, who are men of sincere minds, that I offer a defence: as
for the contentious, I appeal confidently to the decisive proofs which
I have against them. For my cause needs no further judgment; for
judgment has already been given, and not once or twice only, but many
times. First of all, it was tried in my own country in an assembly of
nearly one hundred of its Bishops472472 The
Council of Sardica says eighty; which is a usual number in Egyptian
Councils. (vid. Tillemont, vol. 8. p. 74.) There were about ninety
Bishops in Egypt, the Thebais, and Libya. The present Council was held
[at the end of 338 or possibly at the beginning of 339]. Its synodal
Epistle is contained below, §3, and is particularly addressed to
Pope Julius, §20.; a second time
at Rome, when, in consequence of letters from Eusebius, both they and
we were summoned, and more than fifty Bishops met473473 This
was held in 340. Julius’s Letter is found below,
§21.;
and a third time in the great Council assembled at Sardica by order of
the most religious Emperors Constantius and Constans, when my enemies
were degraded as false accusers, and the sentence that was passed in my
favour received the suffrages of more than three hundred Bishops, out
of the provinces of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, Palestine, Arabia,
Isauria, Cyprus, Pamphylia, Lycia, Galatia, Dacia, Mœsia, Thrace,
Dardania, Macedonia, Epirus, Thessaly, Achaia, Crete, Dalmatia, Siscia,
Pannonia, Noricum, Italy, Picenum, Tuscany, Campania, Calabria, Apulia,
Bruttia, Sicily, the whole of Africa, Sardinia, Spain, Gaul, and
Britain.

Added to these was the testimony474474 Vid.
infr. §58. This was a.d. 347. of Ursacius and Valens, who had formerly
calumniated me, but afterwards changed their minds, and not only gave
their assent to the sentence that was passed in my favour, but also
confessed that they themselves and the rest of my enemies were false
accusers; for men who make such a change and such a recantation of
course reflect upon Eusebius and his fellows, for with them they had
contrived the plot against me. Now after a matter has been examined and
decided on such clear evidence by so many eminent Bishops, every one
will confess that further discussion is unnecessary; else, if an
investigation be instituted at this time, it may be again discussed and
again investigated, and there will be no end to such trifling.

2. Now the decision of so many Bishops was
sufficient to confound those who would still fain pretend some charge
against me. But when my enemies also bear testimony in my favour and
against themselves, declaring that the proceedings against me were a
conspiracy, who is there that would not be ashamed to doubt any longer?
The law requires that in the mouth of two or three witnesses475475Deut. xvii. 6. judgments shall be settled, and we have here
this great multitude of witnesses in my favour, with the addition of
the proofs afforded by my enemies; so much so that those who still
continue opposed to me no longer attach any importance to their own
arbitrary476476ὡς ἠθέλησαν. vid. infr. §14. de Decr. §3. de
Syn. §13. Ep. Æg. §5. judgment, but now have recourse to
violence, and in the place of fair reasoning seek to injure477477 This
implies that Valens and Ursacius were subjected to some kind of
persecution, which is natural [most improbable]. They relapsed in 351,
when Constantius on the death of Constans came into possession of his
brother’s dominions; and professed to have been forced to their
former recantation by the latter Emperor. those by whom they were 101exposed. For this is the chief cause of
vexation to them, that the measures they carried on in secret,
contrived by themselves in a corner, have been brought to light and
disclosed by Valens and Ursacius; for they are well aware that their
recantation while it clears those whom they have injured, condemns
themselves.

Indeed this led to their degradation in the
Council of Sardica, as mentioned before; and with good reason; for, as
the Pharisees of old, when they undertook the defence of Paul478478Acts xxiii. 9., fully exposed the conspiracy which they and
the Jews had formed against him; and as the blessed David was proved to
be persecuted unjustly when the persecutor confessed, ‘I have
sinned, my son David4794791 Sam. xxvi.
21.;’ so it was
with these men; being overcome by the truth they made a request, and
delivered it in writing to Julius, Bishop of Rome. They wrote also to
me requesting to be on terms of peace with me, though they have spread
such reports concerning me; and probably even now they are covered with
shame, on seeing that those whom they sought to destroy by the grace of
the Lord are still alive. Consistently also with this conduct they
anathematized Arius and his heresy; for knowing that Eusebius and his
fellows had conspired against me in behalf of their own misbelief, and
of nothing else, as soon as they had determined to confess their
calumnies against me, they immediately renounced also that
antichristian heresy for the sake of which they had falsely asserted
them.

The following are the letters written in my
favour by the Bishops in the several Councils and first the letter of
the Egyptian Bishops.

Encyclical Letter of the Council of Egypt.

The holy Council assembled at Alexandria out of
Egypt, the Thebais, Libya, and Pentapolis, to the Bishops of the
Catholic Church everywhere, brethren beloved and greatly longed for in
the Lord, greeting.

3. Dearly beloved brethren, we might have put
forth a defence of our brother Athanasius as respects the conspiracy of
Eusebius and his fellows against him, and complained of his sufferings
at their hands, and have exposed all their false charges, either at the
beginning of their conspiracy or upon his arrival at Alexandria. But
circumstances did not permit it then, as you also know; and lately,
after the return of the Bishop Athanasius, we thought that they would
be confounded and covered with shame at their manifest injustice: in
consequence we prevailed with ourselves to remain silent. Since,
however, after all his severe sufferings, after his retirement into
Gaul, after his sojourn in a foreign and far distant country in the
place of his own, after his narrow escape from death through their
calumnies, but thanks to the clemency of the Emperor,—distress
which would have satisfied even the most cruel enemy,—they are
still insensible to shame, are again acting insolently against the
Church and Athanasius; and from indignation at his deliverance venture
on still more atrocious schemes against him, and are ready with an
accusation, fearless of the words in holy Scripture480480Prov. xix. 5; Wisd. i.
11.,
‘A false witness shall not be unpunished;’ and, ‘The
mouth that belieth slayeth the soul;’ we therefore are unable
longer to hold our peace, being amazed at their wickedness and at the
insatiable love of contention displayed in their intrigues.

For see, they cease not to disturb the ear of
royalty with fresh reports against us; they cease not to write letters
of deadly import, for the destruction of the Bishop who is the enemy of
their impiety. For again have they written to the Emperors against him;
again they wish to conspire against him, charging him with a butchery
which has never taken place; again they wish to shed his blood,
accusing him of a murder that never was committed (for at that former
time would they have murdered him by their calumnies, had we not had a
kind Emperor); again they are urgent, to say the least, that he should
be sent into banishment, while they pretend to lament the miseries of
those alleged to have been exiled by him. They lament before us things
that have never been done, and, not satisfied with what has been done
to him, desire to add thereto other and more cruel treatment. So mild
are they and merciful, and of so just a disposition; or rather (for the
truth shall be spoken) so wicked are they and malicious; obtaining
respect through fear and by threats, rather than by their piety and
justice, as becomes Bishops. They have dared in their letters to the
Emperors to pour forth language such as no contentious person would
employ even among those that are without; they have charged him with a
number of murders and butcheries, and that not before a Governor, or
any other superior officer, but before the three Augusti; nor shrink
they from any journey however long, provided only all greater courts
may be filled with their accusations. For indeed, dearly beloved, their
business consists in accusations, and that of the most solemn
character, forasmuch as the 102tribunals to which they make their appeal are
the most solemn of any upon earth. And what other end do they propose
by these investigations, except to move the Emperor to capital
punishment?

4. Their own conduct therefore, and not that of
Athanasius, is the fittest subject for lamentation and mourning, and
one would more properly lament them, for such actions ought to be
bewailed, since it is written, ‘Weep ye not for the dead, neither
bemoan him: but weep sore for him that goeth away, for he shall return
no more481481Jer. xxii. 10..’ For their whole letter contemplates
nothing but death; and their endeavour is to kill, whenever they may be
permitted, or if not, to drive into exile. And this they were permitted
to do by the most religious father of the Emperors, who gratified their
fury by the banishment of Athanasius482482Hist. Ar. 50., instead of his
death. Now that this is not the conduct even of ordinary Christians,
scarcely even of heathens, much less of Bishops, who profess to teach
others righteousness, we suppose that your Christian consciences must
at once perceive. How can they forbid others to accuse their brethren,
who themselves become their accusers, and that to the Emperors? How can
they teach compassion for the misfortunes of others, who cannot rest
satisfied even with our banishment? For there was confessedly a general
sentence of banishment against us Bishops, and we all looked upon
ourselves as banished men: and now again we consider ourselves as
restored with Athanasius to our native places, and instead of our
former lamentations and mourning over him, as having the greatest
encouragement and grace,—which may the Lord continue to us, nor
suffer Eusebius and his fellows to destroy?

Even if their charges against him were true, here
is a certain charge against them, that against the precept of
Christianity, and after his banishment and trials, they have assaulted
him again, and accuse him of murder, and butchery, and other crimes,
which they sound in the royal ears against the Bishops. But how
manifold is their wickedness, and what manner of men think you them,
when every word they speak is false, every charge they bring a calumny,
and there is no truth whatever either in their mouths or their
writings! Let us then at length enter upon these matters, and meet
their last charges. This will prove, that in their former
representations in the Council483483 Of
Tyre. See below, §71. and at the trial
their conduct was dishonourable, or rather their words untrue, besides
exposing them for what they have now advanced.

5. We are indeed ashamed to make any defence
against such charges. But since our reckless accusers lay hold of any
charge, and allege that murders and butcheries were committed after the
return of Athanasius, we beseech you to bear with our answer though it
be somewhat long; for circumstances constrain us. No murder has been
committed either by Athanasius or on his account, since our accusers,
as we said before, compel us to enter upon this humiliating defence.
Slaughter and imprisonment are foreign to our Church. No one did
Athanasius commit into the hands of the executioner; and the prison, so
far as he was concerned, was never disturbed. Our sanctuaries are now,
as they have always been, pure, and honoured only with the Blood of
Christ and His pious worship. Neither Presbyter nor Deacon was
destroyed by Athanasius; he perpetrated no murder, he caused the
banishment of no one. Would that they had never caused the like to him,
nor given him actual experience of it! No one here has been banished on
his account; no one at all except Athanasius himself, the Bishop of
Alexandria, whom they banished, and whom, now that he is restored, they
again seek to entangle in the same or even a more cruel plot than
before, setting their tongues to speak all manner of false and deadly
words against him.

For, behold, they now attribute to him the acts
of the magistrates; and although they plainly confess in their letter
that the Prefect of Egypt passed sentence upon certain persons, they
now are not ashamed to impute this sentence to Athanasius; and that,
though he had not at the time entered Alexandria, but was yet on his
return from his place of exile. Indeed he was then in Syria; since we
must needs adduce in defence his length of way from home, that a man
may not be responsible for the actions of a Governor or Prefect of
Egypt. But supposing Athanasius had been in Alexandria, what were the
proceedings of the Prefect to Athanasius? However, he was not even in
the country; and what the Prefect of Egypt did was not done on
ecclesiastical grounds, but for reasons which you will learn from the
records, which, after we understood what they had written, we made
diligent enquiry for, and have transmitted to you. Since then they now
raise a cry against certain things which were never done either by him
or for him, as though they had certainly taken place, and testify
against such evils as though they were assured of their existence; let
them 103inform us from what Council
they obtained their knowledge of them, from what proofs, and from what
judicial investigation? But if they have no such evidence to bring
forward, and nothing but their own mere assertion, we leave it to you
to consider as regards their former charges also, how the things took
place, and why they so speak of them. In truth, it is nothing but
calumny, and a plot of our enemies, and a temper of ungovernable mood,
and an impiety in behalf of the Arian madmen which is frantic against
true godliness, and desires to root out the orthodox, so that
henceforth the advocates of impiety may preach without fear whatever
doctrines they please. The history of the matter is as
follows:—

6. When Arius, from whom the heresy of the Arian
madmen has its name, was cast out of the Church for his impiety by
Bishop Alexander, of blessed memory, Eusebius and his fellows, who are
the disciples and partners of his impiety, considering themselves also
to have been ejected, wrote frequently to Bishop Alexander, beseeching
him not to leave the heretic Arius out of the Church484484 Cf.
de Syn. 17..
But when Alexander in his piety towards Christ refused to admit that
impious man, they directed their resentment against Athanasius, who was
then a Deacon, because in their busy enquiries they had heard that he
was much in the familiarity of Bishop Alexander, and much honoured by
him. And their hatred of him was greatly increased after they had
experience of his piety towards Christ, in the Council assembled at
Nicæa485485 Cf.
Socr. i. 8., wherein he spoke boldly against the
impiety of the Arian madmen. But when God raised him to the Episcopate,
their long-cherished malice burst forth into a flame, and fearing his
orthodoxy and resistance of their impiety, they (and especially
Eusebius486486 Cf.
Nicomedia., who was smitten with a consciousness
of his own evil doings), engaged in all manner of treacherous designs
against him. They prejudiced the Emperor against him; they frequently
threatened him with Councils; and at last assembled at Tyre; and to
this day they cease not to write against him, and are so implacable
that they even find fault with his appointment to the Episcopate487487 The
Eusebians alleged that, fifty-four Bishops of the two parties of S.
Alexander and Meletius being assembled for the election, and having
sworn to elect by the common voice, six or seven of these broke their
oaths in favour of S. Athanasius, whom no one had thought of, and
consecrated him in secret to the great surprise and scandal of both
ecclesiastical and lay persons. vid. Socr. ii. 17. Philostorgius (a.d. 425) adds particulars, explanatory or
corrective of this statement, of which the Bishops in the text do not
seem to have heard; viz., that Athanasius with his party one night
seized on the Church of St. Dionysius, and compelled two Bishops whom
he found there to consecrate him against their will; that he was in
consequence anathematized by all the other Bishops, but that,
fortifying himself in his position, he sent in his election to the
Emperor, and by this means obtained its confirmation. H. E. ii.
16. It appears, in matter of fact, that S. Athan. was absent at time of
his election; as Socrates says, in order to avoid it, or as Epiphanius,
on business at the Court; these reasons are compatible. [Cf. Prolegg.
ch. ii. §4, and Gwatkin’s note, quoted there.], taking every means of shewing their enmity
and hatred towards him, and spreading false reports for the sole
purpose of thereby vilifying his character.

However, the very misrepresentations which they
now are making do but convict their former statements of being
falsehoods, and a mere conspiracy against him. For they say, that
‘after the death of Bishop Alexander, a certain few having
mentioned the name of Athanasius, six or seven Bishops elected him
clandestinely in a secret place:’ and this is what they wrote to
the Emperors, having no scruple about asserting the greatest
falsehoods. Now that the whole multitude and all the people of the
Catholic Church assembled together as with one mind and body, and
cried, shouted, that Athanasius should be Bishop of their Church, made
this the subject of their public prayers to Christ, and conjured us to
grant it for many days and nights, neither departing themselves from
the Church, nor suffering us to do so; of all this we are witnesses,
and so is the whole city, and the province too. Not a word did they
speak against him, as these persons represented, but gave him the most
excellent titles they could devise, calling him good, pious, Christian,
an ascetic488488 It is
contested whether S. Athan. was ever one of S. Antony’s monks,
the reading of a passage in the commencement of his Vit. Ant., which
would decide the question, varying in different mss. The word “ascetic” is used of those who
lived a life, as afterwards followed in Monasteries, in the Ante-Nicene
times. [See D.C.B. 1. 181a, and Prolegg. ch. ii. §1
ad fin, and Introd. to Vit. Ant.], a genuine Bishop. And that he was
elected by a majority of our body in the sight and with the
acclamations of all the people, we who elected him also testify, who
are surely more credible witnesses than those who were not present, and
now spread these false accounts.

But yet Eusebius finds fault with the appointment
of Athanasius,—he who perhaps never received any appointment to
his office at all; or if he did, has himself rendered it invalid489489 The
Canons of Nicæa and Sardica were absolute against translation,
but, as Bingham observes, Antiqu. vi. 4. §6, only as a general
rule. The so-called Apostolical Canons except “a reasonable
cause” and the sanction of a Council; one of the Councils of
Carthage prohibits them when subserving ambitious views, and except for
the advantage of the Church. Vid. list of translations in Socr.
Hist. vii. 36. Cassiodor. Hist. xii. 8. Niceph.
Hist. xiv. 39. Coteler. adds others ad Can. Apost. 14.
[cf. Hist Ari. 7.]. For he had first the See of Berytus, but
leaving that he came to Nicomedia. He left the one contrary to the law,
and contrary to the law invaded the other; having deserted his own
without affection, and holding possession of another’s without
reason; he 104lost his love for the
first in his lust for another, without even keeping to that which he
obtained at the prompting of his lust. For, behold, withdrawing himself
from the second, again he takes possession of another’s490490 i.e.
Constantinople on the expulsion of Paul., casting an evil eye all around him upon the
cities of other men, and thinking that godliness4914911 Tim. vi. 5; Matt.
xviii. 20; 2 Cor. x. 15; 1 Cor. vii. 27.
consists in wealth and in the greatness of cities, and making light of
the heritage of God to which he had been appointed; not knowing that
‘where’ even ‘two or three are gathered in the name
of the’ Lord, ‘there’ is the Lord ‘in the midst
of them;’ not considering the words of the Apostle, ‘I will
not boast in another man’s labours;’ not perceiving the
charge which he has given, ‘Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not
to be loosed.’ For if this expression applies to a wife, how much
more does it apply to a Church, and to the same Episcopate; to which
whosoever is bound ought not to seek another, lest he prove an
adulterer according to holy Scripture.

7. But though conscious of these his own
misdoings, he has boldly undertaken to arraign the appointment of
Athanasius, to which honourable testimony has been borne by all, and he
ventures to reproach him with his deposition, though he has been
deposed himself, and has a standing proof of his deposition in the
appointment of another in his room. How could either he or Theognius492492 Or
Theognis; he was, as well as Eusebius, a pupil of Lucian’s, and
was deposed together with him after the Nicene Council for
communicating with Arians. [They were not ecclesiastically deposed, but
exiled by the Emperor, see Prolegg. ch. ii. §§3 (1) and (2)
c, 6 (1).] Constantine banished them to Gaul; they were recalled in the
course of two or three years. He was dead by the date of the Council of
Sardica. depose another, after they had been deposed
themselves, which is sufficiently proved by the appointment of others
in their room? For you know very well that there were appointed instead
of them Amphion to Nicomedia and Chrestus to Nicæa, in consequence
of their own impiety and connection with the Arian madmen, who were
rejected by the Ecumenic Council. But while they desire to set aside
that true Council, they endeavour to give that name to their own
unlawful combination493493 Eusebian Council of Tyre, a.d.
335.; while they are
unwilling that the decrees of the Council should be enforced, they
desire to enforce their own decisions; and they use the name of a
Council, while they refuse to submit themselves to one so great as
this. Thus they care not for Councils, but only pretend to do so in
order that they may root out the orthodox, and annul the decrees of the
true and great Council against the Arians, in support of whom, both now
and heretofore, they have ventured to assert these falsehoods against
the Bishop Athanasius. For their former statements resembled those they
now falsely make, viz., that disorderly meetings were held at his
entrance494494 On his
return from Gaul, Nov. 23, a.d. 337. [Prolegg.
ch. ii. §6 (1).], with lamentation and mourning, the
people indignantly refusing to receive him. Now such was not the case,
but, quite the contrary, joy and cheerfulness prevailed, and the people
ran together, hastening to obtain the desired sight of him. The
churches were full of rejoicings, and thanksgivings were offered up to
the Lord everywhere; and all the Ministers and Clergy beheld him with
such feelings, that their souls were possessed with delight, and they
esteemed that the happiest day of their lives. Why need we mention the
inexpressible joy that prevailed among us Bishops, for we have already
said that we counted ourselves to have been partakers in his
sufferings?

8. Now this being confessedly the truth of the
matter, although it is very differently represented by them, what
weight can be attached to that Council or trial of which they make
their boast? Since they presume thus to interfere in a case which they
did not witness, which they have not examined, and for which they did
not meet, and to write as though they were assured of the truth of
their statements, how can they claim credit respecting these matters
for the consideration of which they say that they did meet together?
Will it not rather be believed that they have acted both in the one
case and in the other out of enmity to us? For what kind of a Council
of Bishops was then held? Was it an assembly which aimed at the truth?
Was not almost every one among them our enemy495495 Cf.
§77.? Did
not the attack of Eusebius and his fellows upon us proceed from their
zeal for the Arian madness? Did they not urge on the others of their
party? Have we not always written against them as professing the
doctrines of Arius? Was not Eusebius of Cæsarea in Palestine
accused by our confessors of sacrificing to idols496496 At the
Council of Tyre, Potamo, an Egyptian Bishop and Confessor asked
Eusebius what had happened to him in prison during the
persecution, Epiph. Hær. 68, 7, as if hinting at his
cowardice. It appears that Eusebius was prisoner at Cæsarea with
S. Pamphilus; yet he never mentions the fact himself, which is unlike
him, if it was producible. [The insinuation of Potammon was groundless:
see Dic. C. Biog. ii. 311.]?
Was not George proved to have been deposed by the blessed Alexander497497 George,
Bishop of Laodicea, had been degraded when a priest by S. Alexander,
for his profligate habits as well as his Arianism. Athan. speaks of him
elsewhere as reprobated even by his party. de Fug. 26. [Cf.
§49, de Syn. 17. Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2) c,
2.]? Were not they charged with various offences,
some with this, some with that?

How then could such men entertain the purpose of
holding a meeting against us? 105How
can they have the boldness to call that a Council, at which a Count
presided, which an executioner attended, and where an usher498498 Conventarius. instead of the Deacons of the Church
introduced us into Court; and where the Count only spoke, and all
present held their peace, or rather obeyed his directions499499Hist. Ari. 11, and below §§36, 71.? The removal of those Bishops who seemed to
deserve it was prevented at his desire; and when he gave the order we
were dragged about by soldiers;—or rather Eusebius and his
fellows gave the order, and he was subservient to their will. In short,
dearly beloved, what kind of Council was that, the object of which was
banishment and murder at the pleasure of the Emperor? And of what
nature were their charges?—for here is matter of still greater
astonishment. There was one Arsenius whom they declared to have been
murdered; and they also complained that a chalice belonging to the
sacred mysteries had been broken.

Now Arsenius is alive, and prays to be admitted
to our communion. He waits for no other testimony to prove that he is
still living, but himself confesses it, writing in his own person to
our brother Athanasius, whom they positively asserted to be his
murderer. The impious wretches were not ashamed to accuse him of having
murdered a man who was at a great distance from him, being separated by
so great a distance, whether by sea or land, and whose abode at that
time no one knew. Nay, they even had the boldness to remove him out of
sight, and place him in concealment, though he had suffered no injury;
and, if it had been possible, they would have transported him to
another world, nay, or have taken him from life in earnest, so that
either by a true or false statement of his murder they might in good
earnest destroy Athanasius. But thanks to divine Providence for this
also which permitted them not to succeed in their injustice, but
presented Arsenius500500 §65. alive to the eyes of
all men, who has clearly proved their conspiracy and calumnies. He does
not withdraw from us as murderers, nor hate us as having injured him
(for indeed he has suffered no evil at all); but he desires to hold
communion with us; he wishes to be numbered among us, and has written
to this effect.

9. Nevertheless they laid their plot against
Athanasius, accusing him of having murdered a person who was still
alive; and those same men are the authors of his banishment501501 By
Constantine into Gaul, a.d. 336.. For it was not the father of the Emperors,
but their calumnies, that sent him into exile. Consider whether this is
not the truth. When nothing was discovered to the prejudice of our
fellow-minister Athanasius, but still the Count threatened him with
violence, and was very zealous against him, the Bishop502502 The
circumstances of this appeal, which are related by Athan. below,
§86, are thus summed up by Gibbon; “Before the final
sentence could be pronounced at Tyre, the intrepid primate threw
himself into a bark which was ready to hoist sail for the imperial
city. The request of a formal audience might have been opposed or
eluded; but Athanasius concealed his arrival, watched the moment of
Constantine’s return from an adjacent villa, and boldly
encountered his angry sovereign as he passed on horseback through the
principal street of Constantinople. So strange an apparition excited
his surprise and indignation; and the guards were ordered to remove the
importunate suitor; but his resentment was subdued by involuntary
respect; and the haughty spirit of the Emperor was awed by the courage
and eloquence of a Bishop, who implored his justice and awakened his
conscience.” Decl. and Fall, xxi. Athan. was a small man
in person. fled from this violence and went up503503 i.e. to
Constantinople. to the most religious Emperor, where he
protested against the Count and their conspiracy against him, and
requested either that a lawful Council of Bishops might be assembled,
or that the Emperor would himself receive his defence concerning the
charges they brought against him. Upon this the Emperor wrote in anger,
summoning them before him, and declaring that he would hear the cause
himself, and for that purpose he also ordered a Council to be held.
Whereupon Eusebius and his fellows went up and falsely charged
Athanasius, not with the same offences which they had published against
him at Tyre, but with an intention of detaining the vessels laden with
corn, as though Athanasius had been the man to pretend that he could
stop the exports of corn from Alexandria to Constantinople504504 §87..

Certain of our friends were present at the palace
with Athanasius, and heard the threats of the Emperor upon receiving
this report. And when Athanasius cried out upon the calumny, and
positively declared that it was not true, (for how, he argued, should
he a poor man, and in a private station, be able to do such a thing?)
Eusebius did not hesitate publicly to repeat the charge, and swore that
Athanasius was a rich man, and powerful, and able to do anything; in
order that it might thence be supposed that he had used this language.
Such was the accusation these venerable Bishops proffered against him.
But the grace of God proved superior to their wickedness, for it moved
the pious Emperor to mercy, who instead of death passed upon him the
sentence of banishment. Thus their calumnies, and nothing else, were
the cause of this. For the Emperor, in the letter which he previously
wrote, complained of their conspiracy, censured their machinations, and
condemned the Meletians as unscrupulous and deserving of execration; in
short, expressed himself in the severest terms concerning them. For he
was greatly moved when he heard the story of the dead alive; he was
moved at hearing of 106murder in the
case of one alive, and not deprived of life. We have sent you the
letter.

10. But these marvellous men, Eusebius and his
fellows, to make a show of refuting the truth of the case, and the
statements contained in this letter, put forward the name of a Council,
and ground its proceedings upon the authority of the Emperor. Hence the
attendance of a Count at their meeting, and the soldiers as guards of
the Bishops, and royal letters compelling the attendance of any persons
whom they required. But observe here the strange character of their
machinations, and the inconsistency of their bold measures, so that by
some means or other they may take Athanasius away from us. For if as
Bishops they claimed for themselves alone the judgment of the case,
what need was there for the attendance of a Count and soldiers? or how
was it that they assembled under the sanction of royal letters? Or if
they required the Emperor’s countenance and wished to derive
their authority from him, why were they then annulling his judgment?
and when he declared in the letter which he wrote, that the Meletians
were calumniators, unscrupulous, and that Athanasius was most innocent,
and made much stir about the pretended murder of the living, how was it
that they determined that the Meletians had spoken the truth, and that
Athanasius was guilty of the offence; and were not ashamed to make the
living dead, living both after the Emperor’s judgment, and at the
time when they met together, and who even until this day is amongst us?
So much concerning the case of Arsenius.

11. And as for the cup belonging to the
mysteries, what was it, or where was it broken by Macarius? for this is
the report which they spread up and down. But as for Athanasius, even
his accusers would not have ventured to blame him, had they not been
suborned by them. However, they attribute the origin of the offence to
him; although it ought not to be imputed even to Macarius who is clear
of it. And they are not ashamed to parade the sacred mysteries before
Catechumens, and worse than that, even before heathens505505 This
period, when Christianity was acknowledged by the state but not
embraced by the population, is just the time when we hear most of this
Reserve as a principle. While Christians were but a sect, persecution
enforced a discipline, and when they were commensurate with the nation,
faith made it unnecessary. We are now returned to the state of the
fourth century.: whereas, they ought to attend to what is
written, ‘It is good to keep close the secret of a king506506Tob. xii. 7.;’ and as the Lord has charged us,
‘Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your
pearls before swine507507Matt. vii. 6..’ We ought not
then to parade the holy mysteries before the uninitiated, lest the
heathen in their ignorance deride them, and the Catechumens being
over-curious be offended. However, what was the cup, and where and
before whom was it broken? It is the Meletians who make the accusation,
who are not worthy of the least credit, for they have been schismatics
and enemies of the Church, not of a recent date, but from the times of
the blessed Peter, Bishop and Martyr508508 [Cf.
§59, and Ep. Æg. 22, Prolegg. ch. ii. §2
init.]. They formed a
conspiracy against Peter himself; they calumniated his successor
Achillas; they accused Alexander even before the Emperor; and being
thus well versed in these arts, they have now transferred their enmity
to Athanasius, acting altogether in accordance with their former
wickedness. For as they slandered those that have been before him, so
now they have slandered him. But their calumnies and false accusations
have never prevailed against him until now, that they have got Eusebius
and his fellows for their assistants and patrons, on account of the
impiety which these have adopted from the Arian madmen, which has led
them to conspire against many Bishops, and among the rest
Athanasius.

Now the place where they say the cup was broken,
was not a Church; there was no Presbyter in occupation of the place;
and the day on which they say that Macarius did the deed, was not the
Lord’s day. Since then there was no church there; since there was
no one to perform the sacred office; and since the day did not require
the use of it509509 This
seems to imply that the Holy Communion was only celebrated on Sundays
in the Egyptian Churches. [Cf. §§63, 74, 76.]; what was this cup belonging to the
mysteries, and when, or where was it broken? There are many cups, it is
plain, both in private houses, and in the public market; and if a
person breaks one of them, he is not guilty of impiety. But the cup
which belongs to the mysteries, and which if it be broken
intentionally, makes the perpetrator of the deed an impious person, is
found only among those who lawfully preside. This is the only
description that can be given of this kind of cup; there is none other;
this you legally give to the people to drink; this you have received
according to the canon of the Church510510 Vid.
Can. Ap. 65.; this belongs
only to those who preside over the Catholic Church, for to you only it
appertains to administer the Blood of Christ, and to none besides. But
as he who breaks the cup belonging to the mysteries is an impious
person, much more impious is he who treats the 107Blood of Christ with contumely: and he does so
who ‘does this5115111 Cor. xi. 25.’ contrary to
the rule of the Church. (We say this, not as if a cup even of the
schismatics was broken by Macarius, for there was no cup there at all;
how should there be? where there was neither Lord’s house nor any
the belonging to the Church, nay, it was not the time of the
celebration of the mysteries). Now such a person is the notorious
Ischyras, who was never appointed to his office by the Church, and when
Alexander admitted the Presbyters that had been ordained by Meletius,
he was not even numbered amongst them; and therefore did not receive
ordination even from that quarter.

12. By what means then did Ischyras become a
Presbyter? who was it that ordained him? was it Colluthus? for this is
the only supposition that remains. But it is well known and no one has
any doubt about the matter that Colluthus died a Presbyter, and that
every ordination of his was invalid, and that all that were ordained by
him during the schism were reduced to the condition of laymen, and in
that rank appear in the congregation. How then can it be believed that
a private person, occupying a private house had in his possession a
sacred chalice? But the truth is, they gave the name of Presbyter at
the time to a private person, and gratified him with this title to
support him in his iniquitous conduct towards us; and now as the reward
of his accusations they procure for him the erection of a Church512512 Cf.
§85.. So that this man had then no Church; but as
the reward of his malice and subserviency to them in accusing us, he
receives now what he had not before; nay, perhaps they have even
remunerated his services with the Episcopate, for so he goes about
reporting, and accordingly behaves towards us with great insolence.
Thus are such rewards as these now bestowed by Bishops upon accusers
and calumniators though indeed it is reasonable, in the case of an
accomplice, that as they have made him a partner in their proceedings,
so they should also make him their associate in their own Episcopate.
But this is not all; give ear yet further to their proceedings at that
time.

13. Being unable to prevail against the truth,
though they had thus set themselves in array against it, and Ischyras
having proved nothing at Tyre, but being shewn to be a calumniator, and
the calumny ruining their plot, they defer proceedings for fresh
evidence, and profess that they are going to send to the Mareotis
certain of their party to enquire diligently into the matter.
Accordingly they dispatched secretly, with the assistance of the civil
power, persons to whom we openly objected on many accounts, as being of
the party of Arius, and therefore our enemies; namely, Diognius513513 Vid.
also Ep. Æg. 7. Euseb. Vit. C. iv. 43. Hilar. ad
Const. i. 5. Fragm. ii. 12. [‘Diognius’ is
another form of ‘Theognius’ or Theognis. See Prolegg. ch.
ii. §5.], Maris, Theodorus, Macedonius, and two
others, young both in years and mind514514 Vid.
also Ep. Æg. 7. Euseb. Vit. C. iv. 43. Hilar. ad
Const. i. 5. Fragm. ii. 12. [‘Diognius’ is
another form of ‘Theognius’ or Theognis. See Prolegg. ch.
ii. §5.], Ursacius and
Valens from Pannonia; who, after they had undertaken this long journey
for the purpose of sitting in judgment upon their enemy, set out again
from Tyre for Alexandria. They did not shrink from becoming witnesses
themselves, although they were the judges, but openly adopted every
means of furthering their design, and undertook any labour or journey
whatsoever in order to bring to a successful issue the conspiracy which
was in progress. They left the Bishop Athanasius detained in a foreign
country while they themselves entered their enemy’s city, as if
to have their revel both against his Church and against his people. And
what was more outrageous still, they took with them the accuser
Ischyras, but would not permit Macarius, the accused person, to
accompany them, but left him in custody at Tyre. For ‘Macarius
the Presbyter of Alexandria’ was made answerable for the charge
far and near.

14. They therefore entered Alexandria alone with
the accuser, their partner in lodging, board, and cup; and taking with
them Philagrius the Prefect of Egypt they proceeded to the Mareotis,
and there carried on the so-called investigation by themselves, all
their own way, with the forementioned person. Although the Presbyters
frequently begged that they might be present, they would not permit
them. The Presbyters both of the city and of the whole country desired
to attend, that they might detect who and whence the persons were who
were suborned by Ischyras. But they forbade the Ministers to be
present, while they carried on the examination concerning church, cup,
table, and the holy things, before the heathen; nay, worse than that,
they summoned heathen witnesses during the enquiry concerning a cup
belonging to the mysteries; and those persons who they affirmed were
taken out of the way by Athanasius by summons of the Receiver-general,
and they knew not where in the world they were, these same individuals
they brought forward before themselves and the Prefect only, and
avowedly used their testimony, whom they affirmed without shame to have
been secreted by the Bishop Athanasius.

108But here too
their only object is to effect his death, and so they again pretend
that persons are dead who are still alive, following the same method
they adopted in the case of Arsenius. For the men are living, and are
to be seen in their own country; but to you who are at a great distance
from the spot they make a great stir about the matter as though they
had disappeared, in order that, as the evidence is so far removed from
you, they may falsely accuse our brother-minister, as though he used
violence and the civil power; whereas they themselves have in all
respects acted by means of that power and the countenance of others.
For their proceedings in the Mareotis were parallel to those at Tyre;
and as there a Count attended with military assistance, and would
permit nothing either to be said or done contrary to their pleasure, so
here also the Prefect of Egypt was present with a band of men,
frightening all the members of the Church, and permitting no one to
give true testimony. And what was the strangest thing of all, the
persons who came, whether as judges or witnesses, or, what was more
likely, in order to serve their own purposes and those of Eusebius,
lived in the same place with the accuser, even in his house, and there
seemed to carry on the investigation as they pleased.

15. We suppose you are not ignorant what outrages
they committed at Alexandria; for they are reported everywhere. Naked
swords515515 Cf.
Encycl. 3, Apol. Const. 33. were at work against the holy virgins and
brethren; scourges were at work against their persons, esteemed
honourable in the sight of God, so that their feet were lamed by the
stripes, whose souls are whole and sound in purity and all good works516516Hist. Arian. 12.. The trades were excited against them; and
the heathen multitude was set to strip them naked, to beat them,
wantonly to insult them, and to threaten them with their altars and
sacrifices. And one coarse fellow, as though license had now been given
them by the Prefect in order to gratify the Bishops, took hold of a
virgin by the hand, and dragged her towards an altar that happened to
be near, imitating the practice of compelling to offer sacrifice in
time of persecution. When this was done, the virgins took to flight,
and a shout of laughter was raised by the heathen against the Church;
the Bishops being in the place, and occupying the very house where this
was going on; and from which, in order to obtain favour with them, the
virgins were assaulted with naked swords, and were exposed to all kinds
of danger, and insult, and wanton violence. And this treatment they
received on a fast-day517517 [Not in
Lent, for the commission were at Alexandria in September, see the date
of the protest, infra, §76.], and at the hands of
persons who themselves were feasting with the Bishops indoors.

16. Foreseeing these things, and reflecting that
the entrance of enemies into a place is no ordinary calamity, we
protested against this commission. And Alexander518518 This
Alexander had been one of the Nicene Fathers, in 325, and had the
office of publishing their decrees in Macedonia, Greece, &c. He was
at the Council of Jerusalem ten years after, at which the Church of the
Holy Sepulchre was consecrated, and afterwards Arius admitted to
communion. His influence with the Court party seems to have been great,
judging from Count Dionysius’s tone in speaking of him. Infr.
§§66, 80, 81.,
Bishop of Thessalonica, considering the same, wrote to the people
residing there, discovering the conspiracy, and testifying of the plot.
They indeed reckon him to be one of themselves, and account him a
partner in their designs; but they only prove thereby the violence they
have exercised towards him. For even the profligate Ischyras himself
was only induced by fear and violence to proceed in the matter, and was
obliged by force to undertake the accusation. As a proof of this, he
wrote himself to our brother Athanasius519519 Infr.
§64.,
confessing that nothing of the kind that was alleged had taken place
there, but that he was suborned to make a false statement. This
declaration he made, though he was never admitted by Athanasius as a
Presbyter, nor received such a title of grace from him, nor was
entrusted by way of recompense with the erection of a Church, nor
expected the bribe of a Bishopric; all of which he obtained from them
in return for undertaking the accusation. Moreover, his whole family
held communion with us520520 Vid
infr. §63 fin. §85 fin., which they would not
have done had they been injured in the slightest degree.

17. Now to prove that these things are facts and
not mere assertions, we have the testimony521521 Infr.
§74. of
all the Presbyters of the Mareotis522522 The
district, called Mareotis from a neighbouring lake, lay in the
territory and diocese of Alexandria, to the south-west. It consisted of
various large villages, with handsome Churches, and resident Priests,
and of hamlets which had none; of the latter was “Irene of
Secontarurus)” (infr. §85.) where Ischyras lived., who always
accompany the Bishop in his visitations, and who also wrote at the time
against Ischyras. But neither those of them who came to Tyre were
allowed to declare the truth523523 Infr.
§79., nor could those who
remained in the Mareotis obtain permission to refute the calumnies of
Ischyras524524 §72 fin.. The copies also of the letters of
Alexander, and of the Presbyters, and of Ischyras will prove the same
thing. We have sent also the letter of the father of the Emperors, in
which he expresses his indignation that the murder of Arsenius was
charged upon any one while the man was still alive; as also his
astonishment at the variable and in109consistent character of their accusations with
respect to the cup; since at one time they accused the Presbyter
Macarius, at another the Bishop Athanasius, of having broken it with
his hands. He declares also on the one hand that the Meletians are
calumniators, and on the other that Athanasius is perfectly
innocent.

And are not the Meletians calumniators, and above
all John525525 Arcaph.
infr. 65 fin., head of the Meletians., who after coming into the Church, and
communicating with us, after condemning himself, and no longer taking
any part in the proceedings respecting the cup, when he saw Eusebius
and his fellows zealously supporting the Arian madmen, though they had
not the daring to co-operate with them openly, but were attempting to
employ others as their masks, undertook a character, as an actor in the
heathen theatres526526 Vid.
infr. §37, 46. and de Syn. 32, note.? The subject of the
drama was a contest of Arians; the real design of the piece being their
success, but John and his partizans being put on the stage and playing
the parts, in order that under colour of these, the supporters of the
Arians in the garb of judges might drive away the enemies of their
impiety, firmly establish their impious doctrines, and bring the Arians
into the Church. And those who wish to drive out true religion strive
all they can to prevail by irreligion; they who have chosen the part of
that impiety which wars against Christ, endeavour to destroy the
enemies thereof, as though they were impious persons; and they impute
to us the breaking of the cup, for the purpose of making it appear that
Athanasius, equally with themselves, is guilty of impiety towards
Christ.

For what means this mention of a cup belonging to
the mysteries by them? Whence comes this religious regard for the cup
among those who support impiety towards Christ? Whence comes it that
Christ’s cup is known to them who know not Christ? How can they
who profess to honour that cup, dishonour the God of the cup? or how
can they who lament over the cup, seek to murder the Bishop who
celebrates the mysteries therewith? for they would have murdered him,
had it been in their power. And how can they who lament the loss of the
throne that was Episcopally covered527527 Cathedræ velatæ, see Bingh. viii. 6.
§10., seek to destroy
the Bishop that sat upon it, to the end that both the throne may be
without its Bishop, and that the people may be deprived of godly
doctrine? It was not then the cup, nor the murder, nor any of those
portentous deeds they talk about, that induced them to act thus; but
the forementioned heresy of the Arians, for the sake of which they
conspired against Athanasius and other Bishops, and still continue to
wage war against the Church.

Who are they that have really been the cause of
murders and banishments? Is it not these? Who are they that, availing
themselves of external support, conspire against the Bishops? Are not
Eusebius and his fellows the men, and not Athanasius, as they say in
their letters? Both he and others have suffered at their hands. Even at
the time of which we speak, four Presbyters528528 Vid.
their names infr. §40. of
Alexandria, though they had not even proceeded to Tyre, were banished
by their means. Who then are they whose conduct calls for tears and
lamentations? Is it not they, who after they have been guilty of one
course of persecution, do not scruple to add to it a second, but have
recourse to all manner of falsehood, in order that they may destroy a
Bishop who will not give way to their impious heresy? Hence arises the
enmity of Eusebius and his fellows; hence their proceedings at Tyre;
hence their pretended trials; hence also now the letters which they
have written even without any trial, expressing the utmost confidence
in their statements; hence their calumnies before the father of the
Emperors, and before the most religious Emperors themselves.

18. For it is necessary that you should know what
is now reported to the prejudice of our fellow-minister Athanasius, in
order that you may thereby be led to condemn their wickedness, and may
perceive that they desire nothing else but to murder him. A quantity of
corn was given by the father of the Emperors for the support of certain
widows, partly of Libya, and partly certain out of Egypt. They have all
received it up to this time, Athanasius getting nothing therefrom, but
the trouble of assisting them. But now, although the recipients
themselves make no complaint, but acknowledge that they have received
it, Athanasius has been accused of selling all the corn, and
appropriating the profits to his own use: and the Emperor wrote to this
effect about it, charging him with the offence in consequence of the
calumnies which had been raised against him. Now who are they which
have raised these calumnies? Is it not those who after they have been
guilty of one course of persecution, scruple not to set on foot
another? Who are the authors of those letters which are said to have
come from the Emperor? Are not the Arians, who are so zealous against
Athanasius, and scruple not to speak and write anything against him? No
one would pass over persons 110who
have acted as they have done, in order to entertain suspicion of
others. Nay, the proof of their calumny appears to be most evident for
they are anxious under cover of it, to take away the corn from the
Church, and to give it to the Arians. And this circumstance more than
any other, brings the matter home to the authors of this design and
their principals, who scrupled neither to set on foot a charge of
murder against Athanasius, as a base means of prejudicing the Emperor
against him, nor yet to take away from the Clergy of the Church the
subsistence of the poor, in order that in fact they might make gain for
the heretics.

19. We have sent also the testimony of our
fellow-ministers in Libya, Pentapolis, and Egypt, from which likewise
you may learn the false accusations which have been brought against
Athanasius. And these things they do, in order that, the professors of
true godliness being henceforth induced by fear to remain quiet, the
heresy of the impious Arians may be brought in in its stead. But thanks
be to your piety, dearly beloved, that you have frequently
anathematized the Arians in your letters, and have never given them
admittance into the Church. The exposure of Eusebius and his fellows is
also easy and ready at hand. For behold, after their former letters
concerning the Arians, of which also we have sent you copies, they now
openly stir up the Arian madmen against the Church, though the whole
Catholic Church has anathematized them; they have appointed a Bishop529529 Pistus. over them; they distract the Churches with
threats and alarms, that they may gain assistants in their impiety in
every part. Moreover, they send Deacons to the Arian madmen, who openly
join their assemblies; they write letters to them, and receive answers
from them, thus making schisms in the Church, and holding communion
with them; and they send to every part, commending their heresy, and
repudiating the Church, as you will perceive from the letters they have
addressed to the Bishop of Rome530530 Vid.
infr. §21. and perhaps to
yourselves also. You perceive therefore, dearly beloved, that these
things are not undeserving of vengeance: they are indeed dreadful and
alien from the doctrine of Christ.

Wherefore we have assembled together, and have
written to you, to request of your Christian wisdom to receive this our
declaration and sympathize with our brother Athanasius, and to shew
your indignation against Eusebius and his fellows who have essayed such
things, in order that such malice and wickedness may no longer prevail
against the Church. We call upon you to be the avengers of such
injustice, reminding you of the injunction of the Apostle, ‘Put
away from among yourselves that wicked person5315311 Cor. v. 13..’ Wicked indeed is their conduct, and
unworthy of your communion. Wherefore give no further heed to them,
though they should again write to you against the Bishop Athanasius
(for all that proceeds from them is false); not even though they
subscribe their letter with names532532 The
Eusebians availed themselves of the subscriptions of the Meletians, as
at Philippopolis, Hilar. Fragm. 3. of Egyptian
Bishops. For it is evident that it will not be we who write, but the
Meletians533533 Infr.
§73., who have ever been schismatics, and
who even unto this day make disturbances and raise factions in the
Churches. For they ordain improper persons, and all but heathens; and
they are guilty of such actions as we are ashamed to set down in
writing, but which you may learn from those whom we have sent unto you,
who will also deliver to you our letter.

20. Thus wrote the Bishops of Egypt to all
Bishops, and to Julius, Bishop of Rome.

472 The
Council of Sardica says eighty; which is a usual number in Egyptian
Councils. (vid. Tillemont, vol. 8. p. 74.) There were about ninety
Bishops in Egypt, the Thebais, and Libya. The present Council was held
[at the end of 338 or possibly at the beginning of 339]. Its synodal
Epistle is contained below, §3, and is particularly addressed to
Pope Julius, §20.

477 This
implies that Valens and Ursacius were subjected to some kind of
persecution, which is natural [most improbable]. They relapsed in 351,
when Constantius on the death of Constans came into possession of his
brother’s dominions; and professed to have been forced to their
former recantation by the latter Emperor.

487 The
Eusebians alleged that, fifty-four Bishops of the two parties of S.
Alexander and Meletius being assembled for the election, and having
sworn to elect by the common voice, six or seven of these broke their
oaths in favour of S. Athanasius, whom no one had thought of, and
consecrated him in secret to the great surprise and scandal of both
ecclesiastical and lay persons. vid. Socr. ii. 17. Philostorgius (a.d. 425) adds particulars, explanatory or
corrective of this statement, of which the Bishops in the text do not
seem to have heard; viz., that Athanasius with his party one night
seized on the Church of St. Dionysius, and compelled two Bishops whom
he found there to consecrate him against their will; that he was in
consequence anathematized by all the other Bishops, but that,
fortifying himself in his position, he sent in his election to the
Emperor, and by this means obtained its confirmation. H. E. ii.
16. It appears, in matter of fact, that S. Athan. was absent at time of
his election; as Socrates says, in order to avoid it, or as Epiphanius,
on business at the Court; these reasons are compatible. [Cf. Prolegg.
ch. ii. §4, and Gwatkin’s note, quoted there.]

488 It is
contested whether S. Athan. was ever one of S. Antony’s monks,
the reading of a passage in the commencement of his Vit. Ant., which
would decide the question, varying in different mss. The word “ascetic” is used of those who
lived a life, as afterwards followed in Monasteries, in the Ante-Nicene
times. [See D.C.B. 1. 181a, and Prolegg. ch. ii. §1
ad fin, and Introd. to Vit. Ant.]

489 The
Canons of Nicæa and Sardica were absolute against translation,
but, as Bingham observes, Antiqu. vi. 4. §6, only as a general
rule. The so-called Apostolical Canons except “a reasonable
cause” and the sanction of a Council; one of the Councils of
Carthage prohibits them when subserving ambitious views, and except for
the advantage of the Church. Vid. list of translations in Socr.
Hist. vii. 36. Cassiodor. Hist. xii. 8. Niceph.
Hist. xiv. 39. Coteler. adds others ad Can. Apost. 14.
[cf. Hist Ari. 7.]

492 Or
Theognis; he was, as well as Eusebius, a pupil of Lucian’s, and
was deposed together with him after the Nicene Council for
communicating with Arians. [They were not ecclesiastically deposed, but
exiled by the Emperor, see Prolegg. ch. ii. §§3 (1) and (2)
c, 6 (1).] Constantine banished them to Gaul; they were recalled in the
course of two or three years. He was dead by the date of the Council of
Sardica.

496 At the
Council of Tyre, Potamo, an Egyptian Bishop and Confessor asked
Eusebius what had happened to him in prison during the
persecution, Epiph. Hær. 68, 7, as if hinting at his
cowardice. It appears that Eusebius was prisoner at Cæsarea with
S. Pamphilus; yet he never mentions the fact himself, which is unlike
him, if it was producible. [The insinuation of Potammon was groundless:
see Dic. C. Biog. ii. 311.]

497 George,
Bishop of Laodicea, had been degraded when a priest by S. Alexander,
for his profligate habits as well as his Arianism. Athan. speaks of him
elsewhere as reprobated even by his party. de Fug. 26. [Cf.
§49, de Syn. 17. Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2) c,
2.]

502 The
circumstances of this appeal, which are related by Athan. below,
§86, are thus summed up by Gibbon; “Before the final
sentence could be pronounced at Tyre, the intrepid primate threw
himself into a bark which was ready to hoist sail for the imperial
city. The request of a formal audience might have been opposed or
eluded; but Athanasius concealed his arrival, watched the moment of
Constantine’s return from an adjacent villa, and boldly
encountered his angry sovereign as he passed on horseback through the
principal street of Constantinople. So strange an apparition excited
his surprise and indignation; and the guards were ordered to remove the
importunate suitor; but his resentment was subdued by involuntary
respect; and the haughty spirit of the Emperor was awed by the courage
and eloquence of a Bishop, who implored his justice and awakened his
conscience.” Decl. and Fall, xxi. Athan. was a small man
in person.

505 This
period, when Christianity was acknowledged by the state but not
embraced by the population, is just the time when we hear most of this
Reserve as a principle. While Christians were but a sect, persecution
enforced a discipline, and when they were commensurate with the nation,
faith made it unnecessary. We are now returned to the state of the
fourth century.

517 [Not in
Lent, for the commission were at Alexandria in September, see the date
of the protest, infra, §76.]

518 This
Alexander had been one of the Nicene Fathers, in 325, and had the
office of publishing their decrees in Macedonia, Greece, &c. He was
at the Council of Jerusalem ten years after, at which the Church of the
Holy Sepulchre was consecrated, and afterwards Arius admitted to
communion. His influence with the Court party seems to have been great,
judging from Count Dionysius’s tone in speaking of him. Infr.
§§66, 80, 81.

522 The
district, called Mareotis from a neighbouring lake, lay in the
territory and diocese of Alexandria, to the south-west. It consisted of
various large villages, with handsome Churches, and resident Priests,
and of hamlets which had none; of the latter was “Irene of
Secontarurus)” (infr. §85.) where Ischyras lived.